Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Community Reputation

60 Excellent

About tinter

  • Rank
    Gunnery Sergeant

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That's not moving the goal posts, since the official DLC is also better than what you get for free. That's a matter of opinion, but it's my opinion the quality from Bohemia has consistently been higher. That is entirely ignoring the amount of content, on purpose mind you. I will say that after joining the discord and viewing the discussion with the developers, that I'm feeling more sure that this will eventually end up with a level of polish that I will be satisfied with. Seeing them talk about the work they're doing and collecting bug reports, responding personally to discussion, gives me a lot of faith in their ability to deliver work. But it's just sort of hidden away, and I really am of the opinion that the release should've been marked as beta or been released on the dev branch first, to sate people's expectations. I can entirely see how saying too much can also be a bad thing, but I don't really think that's a good argument to make. It's not a situation of 'say everything or nothing,' there's a middle ground and I think they missed it by not saying what state the initial release of the DLC will be in, and more importantly in my opinion, what they're doing moving forward and what the goal is.
  2. I think this hype train crashing that you mention, could've just been avoided if Bohemia had been more specific about what they do and don't do. Who sets the standards? Whether that line of thinking is a mistake, I can't say, but I can say I've seen people who share that line of thinking and others who disagree completely. Which is all the more reason that there should've been better communication about this. I think when they decide to charge money for this, then that sets the expectation that it'll be better than what you can get for free.
  3. My point isn't really about the errors in themselves, I only cared at first because I didn't expect it to be a work-in-progress, but that's fair even though I really think they should've made that clear. I'm sure everything will be made better with time, a lot of stuff fixed, but now I'm just worried if it's gonna be up to DLC standards. And considering this is being sold as a DLC, that's what I, and I know many others, expected the level of quality to match. We just have no statement as to what their plan is, or what to expect.
  4. Congratulations on the initial release to Julian and Lars. I can see what a great opportunity it is to get to make this as a DLC instead of a mod. I'm really excited to see what you further do with this DLC. I have respect for modders and the developers of Arma and the work they do. I love this series myself and I'm sure love for this series is part of what has driven much of this new DLC. That said my thoughts on the new DLC are really mixed and a little disappointed. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but my main gripe is that I have to have so much doubt. When this DLC was announced, I was really excited. Just the thought of getting to play with this new content like action figures or dolls to dress up in arsenal, filled me with a glee. Which isn't even considering the scenarions made, I would make and others would make with the content, or the mods that it will inspire. There wasn't much information to go off on, other than the store page, which gave an outline of the expected content, and the creator DLC page https://arma3.com/dlc/creator. What particularly struck out to me is the question of: "What is Bohemia's involvement? Bohemia provides continuous feedback to the developers, assists with the Quality Assurance (testing) process, and offers legal, mastering, publishing, and promotional support." This to me, meant that we could expect the same level of quality as other DLC content has. Much can be said about the vanilla and earlier DLC content of arma. The future setting isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I really think that there's not any mods that feel as well polished as vanilla and DLC content. And for this reason, I sometimes prefer to play without mods. Now this DLC has launched, and I like a lot about it, but my main problem is that I can only conclude it's a work-in-progress, and I didn't expect it to be a work-in-progress. It was quite a bit shocking to see the state of some of the content, like the SPW-40 that is near uselss with only the picture-in-picture view animated at 5 fps, or the SPW-60 that is completely useless because you can't see the picture-in-picture view. It was a little gradual process that ranged from disappointment in the quality, eventually leading to me concluding that this isn't a finished version. Which is fine, if I had known all along that this was an unfinished version, but I can only draw my own conclusions that it is. Now everything is always in progress now a days, with being able to patch games through the internet. But my assumption going into it was that it was a 1.0 release where the content was mostly finished. Without being able to properly define what exactly that entails, I'll just summarize that my expectations were wildly different compared to what was delivered. It feels like there's been a big miscommunication. So now afther the "shock" so-to-speak, what are my thoughts then? Well I have no doubt that there will be further work to improve it and that it will turn out better with time. Hell it was the same for Arma 3 itself, looking back I can't believe I ever tried to use the 2D editor. But still I have some doubt. Doubting my own expectations of quality, not knowing what is actually the view of something being finished. There are lots of little things that irk me now, which could just be fixed, but what of it will actually be changed? For something like the SPW-60, I'm sure there will be changes, but what about the new uniforms and vests that clip with a lot of Bohemia content (Clipping is always an issue, but how much is gonna be tolerable? Putting stuff together in different ways is part of the appeal of new gear for me.) What about the reload animations that are for the most part fine, but still is a little janky? They feel 90% done, but is 90% enough? There are many small touches that make it feel different from Bohemia's content, but I don't have a sense of what is going to be changed or what is going to be kept? I could list out many issues (some are maybe just personal to me), but I doubt that'd be constructive, I'm sure most you'd already know about. What I wish is just a sense of where this DLC is going to go. As a DLC, rather than a paid mod, I'd expect it to be on par with other DLCs, fair enough if it takes time, but just get there in the end. It's just that I have seen no promise that this is the level of polish that you strive for. And with images like this https://arma3.com/assets/img/post/images/spredsheet.jpg I doubt more. Model interior not required? While I've been skeptic of vehicle interiors (Amount of work vs. what is gained), this is not leaving it on the same level as other DLCs. I hope it turns out good, but I'm just worried that it's going to leave out the features or polish that Bohemia's content has. Which would mean that this goes from the anticipated third-party collaboration, to a mere paid mod. Sorry if it comes out dramatic, but it's just me feeling a little lost as to what I should expect. I hope this will not come off too harshly, I just don't think low expectations are doing anyone a favour. We all want Arma to be the best it can be. So keep going and make it even better, please.
  5. I've realized I can fix some of these problems with a mod like this class CfgPatches { class tint_targets { units[]={ "B_TargetSoldier_tin", "O_TargetSoldier_tin", "I_TargetSoldier_tin" }; weapons[]={}; requiredVersion=1.0; requiredAddons[]= { "A3_Structures_F" }; }; }; class CfgVehicles { class B_TargetSoldier; class O_TargetSoldier; class I_TargetSoldier; class B_TargetSoldier_tin: B_TargetSoldier { model = "\A3\Structures_F\System\ClutterCutter_small_F.p3d"; scope = 2; }; class O_TargetSoldier_tin: O_TargetSoldier { model = "\A3\Structures_F\System\ClutterCutter_small_F.p3d"; scope = 2; }; class I_TargetSoldier_tin: I_TargetSoldier { model = "\A3\Structures_F\System\ClutterCutter_small_F.p3d"; scope = 2; }; }; I would release this, but I would much rather prefer that BIS would implement these changes or similar themselves.
  6. I've found ArtilleryTarget ArtilleryTargetE ArtilleryTargetW SuppressTarget PaperCar FireSectorTarget these classnames and no matter if they have crew or not, positive or negative rating, using createVehicle or createUnit, above ground or not, using the reveal command, will not have the AI shoot at them.
  7. I made a thread on this already, I don't exactly know the forum structure, but I thought I should notify the people who would probably use this. I apologize severely if I'm breaking so many rules doing this and I can only beg for your mercy on my ignorance. With that disclaimer out of the way, Arma 3 has invisible targets. //_target = "B_TargetSoldier" createVehicle [0,0,0]; //_target = "O_TargetSoldier" createVehicle [0,0,0]; _target = "I_TargetSoldier" createVehicle [0,0,0]; createVehicleCrew _target; AI will shoot at these as if they were enemies. You can also set their rating to -10000 and all enemies will shoot at whatever target you chose. Now this has some limitations as described in the above thread, but I think it's still something worth mentioning to everyone. I at least didn't know this existed and have always seen tons of threads asking how to make the AI shoot at something, of course I saw these while trying to figure out how to solve the same problem. Sometimes fiddling with doTarget and the various fire commands work, but there's at least an alternative. So yeah, try it. If you make anything cool with it, post it in this thread I guess.
  8. I apologize in advance if this isn't the right forum, I have trouble navigating when there are so many forums. With this post I just want to talk about a feature that I didn't know existed, but I've needed and seen people need a lot. The problem is when you want AI to shoot at something that isn't strictly an enemy unit. The go-to answer for this problem has usually been to use the targetting commands, and then fiddling with whichever command for firing that just happens to work. But there is a much better solution that was in the game since alpha, removed and apparently added back in later and those are invisible targets. _target = "O_TargetSoldier" createVehicle [0,0,0]; createVehicleCrew _target; This creates a unit that is invisible, ai will react to it and fire at it as if it was an enemy. This is so much better in so many situations than manually taking control of the AI with scripts and all the various firing commands. Once I saw this I wanted to tell the whole world about this wonderful feature. Sadly, this solution has it's own problems, and worst of all, I believe many of these problems could be fixed rather easily. To start off, you need to add a crew to this object. This seems excessive as there are already many units in the game and this object could've just been made into a normal unit, instead of a vehicle.This has also lead to a lot of people discovering this feature, trying it out and then concluding it must be bugged because they didn't realize they needed a crew. Second of all, this object actually blocks bullets. If you put it in front of something you want the AI to target, they'll shoot at it, you get nice sparks, until they run out of ammo or you script the object to be deleted, but not much will happen with whatever's behind, since the object absorbs all bullets. Best you can hope for is that the ai misses a bit, so they bullets actually hit the target you intended. I'm not an expert on arma modding, but according to this page https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Oxygen_2_-_Manual#FIRE_Geometry, this is actually a really simple fix. Third of all, this object is hidden. The problem with this is of course that very few people actually realizes this exists, which is a crying shame when there are countless forum posts all asking the same question, how do I make the AI shoot at something? Don't take my word for it, look at all these posts (Some admittedly for Arma 2) where this feature could've been used(Although this is not saying it's the best solution in all cases): https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/176421-force-ai-to-shoot-at-a-spot/ https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/203553-forcing-ai-to-shoot-help/ https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/118773-make-ai-shot-at-a-training-target/ https://www.reddit.com/r/arma/comments/60rr2d/script_to_get_ai_to_shoot_down_range/ https://www.reddit.com/r/arma/comments/7m1ldy/how_to_get_ai_to_target_civilians/ https://steamcommunity.com/app/107410/discussions/18/1693785669846205227/ http://www.armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&q=35586 Last of all the problems I know, attaching this object to something can easily obscure it. This one I sadly don't know how to fix. To describe the problem though, trying to attach this to an object is finicky as you can easily end up putting it within the bounds of your intended target, which means the AI won't see the invisible target, as the visible target obscures it. This is actually a two part problem as this target is invisible and thus it's hard to even get an idea of what you're even working with. If there at least existed some documentation on it, you could try to make it workable for whatever you're doing at the moment. Getting to my wishlist at this point, it would also be very helpful if the shape of the object wasn't a box, but maybe more like a little 1x1m plane, or maybe several sizes? But that's wishful thinking and I'd much rather it stays as is, as long as the above problems got fixed. Now I originally found this through an addon that itself added invisible targets. https://github.com/DerekSauer/Sauer_InvisibleTargets The author claims that the addon is now obsolete and it led to much confusion and my (re)discovery of this object. However I'm doubting the claim that it is obsolete, as, while I haven't tested it myself, I could easily see it working out better than the vanilla alternative. I could try to fix this myself, I imagine a model for an invisible target would be pretty simple. If I find a pocket of time I might release my own version. I do hope that Bohemia takes notice of this very needed but lacking feature, and I hope the community will really make use of it, as problematic as it is at the moment. In short, for all mission makers and scripters, I hope you experiment with this and try to use this for things you couldn't make before.
  9. tinter

    Tempest Device

    There is a function that spawns earthquakes. I can't find it at the moment, but check the function viewer for bis_fnc_earthquake.
  10. tinter

    Insane stuttering makes the game unplayable

    What causes stuttering is either a disk that can't keep up, RAM that can't keep up or badly coded scripts that are coded in such a way that they cause stutters. You can check for the first two by using something like the Resource Monitor in Windows, but the last one requires you to test the mission for it. You should check if this happens in all kinds of missions.
  11. I assume this is about the level of magnification? In that case you can just zoom in and out with the + and - on the numpad, or check the controls in the options to see what they're set to.
  12. tinter

    Lost the ArmA 3 hype

    Honestly, don't feel like I have this problem. Got 7365 hours in Arma 3 so far (Fair amount spent alt+tabbed). I usually try to get ideas for making missions for this coop community I play with and I sometimes makes mods, working on different projects at times. I feel like making missions was once a bit of drag, but ever since the switch to the 3D editor, I feel like I can much better get a feel for my missions. When I first started out making missions, I was all about trying to do things in the editor, and as I gained more experience and learned more about scripting I switched to trying to do most things in .sqf. And now with the 3D editor I rely on scripts to do what I can't do in the editor, but otherwise try to do most of what I can in the 3D editor. Even placing units in the editor and caching them with functions, means I can much better get a feel for my mission and it makes it so much more enjoyable. Sure there are times when I don't always want to, but it's always due to a lack of feel for the direction. My mission design philosophy is all about trying to make something I would want to play, usually this means trying to get a good atmosphere and experimenting with different settings. I'm very inspired by music and sometimes I get an idea just due to listening to a song that I feel is the soundtrack of my mission, even before I made it. This is what gives me ideas, which I then write down and I play around with them in the editor. Although to really make something out of them it requires me to get a feel for what the mission should be like, hopping in the arsenal and designing friendly and enemy units is the first step, but being able to fly around in the 3D editor, looking for a good area, placing enemy and fortifications as I like them, helps me better to get started and designing a mission flow. This is probably a bit rambly, but I just feel with the advent of the 3D editor, this is the most inspired I've been in years of Arma 3 to make missions and it really helps keep me motivated. The biggest problem is of course putting in the work and elbow grease required to make the mission, but most importantly is to just keep at it and not get stuck when not sure of what to do. Of course my experience is probably different compared to people who make SP missions. Being immersed in a mission is easier when playing with other players as it feels more real when there's a person next to you that you can talk with.
  13. Seems pretty good, although I get the feel that some of the cities are copy+pasted on multiple times. Makes the map feel sort of repetitive, but I still feel like it's a good map. One note though, it seems the satmap textures are too bright. When standing on the ground, the textures close to you are dark which makes the satmap further out seem very bright. Will look forward to further updates.
  14. Sounds really promising. I'm excited to try out these new changes for this nice map.
  15. Ah, I thought it was related to SMD, so I didn't know. Thanks for the answer.